Snell v Glatis [2020] NSWCA 78

Snell v Glatis [2020] NSWCA 78

A stay of enforcement of orders (4) and (7)-(14) was justified because there was a real issue on appeal concerning the buy-out orders, Mr Snell lacked liquid resources or available credit to pay the $1,394,144.65 judgment before the imminent appeal hearing, forced sale of property was not feasible particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy could worsen the position for the respondents, there was no evidence of Mr Glatis' immediate need for funds, and the respondents could be protected by restraining Mr Snell from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing Australian assets except for specified expenses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of Orders Made in the Equity Division Pending Determination of the Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted in part, subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['stay of Judgment Pending Appeal' 'oppressive Conduct' 'buy Out Orders' 'enforcement of Money Judgment' 'conditions of Stay']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['stay of Judgment Pending Appeal' 'oppressive Conduct' 'buy Out Orders' 'enforcement of Money Judgment' 'conditions of Stay']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking a Stay of Orders Made in the Equity Division Pending Determination of the Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether enforcement of orders (4) and (7)-(14) made by Rees J on 27 November 2019 should be stayed until determination of the appeal.' 'Whether the stay should extend to the money judgment against Mr Snell in the sum of $1,394,144.65.' 'What conditions should be imposed on any stay, including restraints on Mr Snell dealing with assets in Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

A stay of enforcement of orders (4) and (7)-(14) was justified because there was a real issue on appeal concerning the buy-out orders, Mr Snell lacked liquid resources or available credit to pay the $1,394,144.65 judgment before the imminent appeal hearing, forced sale of property was not feasible particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy could worsen the position for the respondents, there was no evidence of Mr Glatis' immediate need for funds, and the respondents could be protected by restraining Mr Snell from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing Australian assets except for specified expenses.

Court Disposition

Stay granted in part, subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['Stay the enforcement of orders (4) and (7)-(14) made by Rees J on 27 November 2019 until the determination of the appeal, subject to the condition that the first appellant not remove from Australia or dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any assets owned by him in Australia without the prior written...